Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., stopped on the way to the elevator after making an hour-long pitch for HR20, his proposal for partial public financing of congressional campaigns. He had almost forgotten to mention one of the most compelling selling points for his crusade.

"Look up the speeches of retiring House and Senate members," Sarbanes said after his meeting with The Chronicle's editorial board last week. "Look at how many of them - almost all of them - talk about the corrosive influence of money in politics."

Indeed. They deplore the system they endured - and sometimes exploited, even mastered - as a last rite of absolution before leaving public life.

"The unending chase for money" said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in his farewell speech in January 2013, "threatens to steal our democracy itself." Former Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., said in 2011 he felt "ugly, embarrassed" about begging for money in modern politics. "We're stuck in a trough of raising bucks," he said. "We were elected to legislate. We cannot legislate if we have to fundraise day and night."

Sarbanes thinks he might have an antidote to big money in politics.

It's small money.

"If you think about it, that whole discussion (on campaign finance reform) is about how you referee the conduct of big money; it has nothing to do with empowering the small donors," Sarbanes said.

The congressman, whose father, Paul, served three decades in the Senate, acknowledged that containment of large donations has become largely futile with the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision that asserted the right of corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals to spend unlimited amounts for or against candidates.

A constitutional amendment to affirm the people's right to regulate political contributions would be "a tough row to hoe," Sarbanes said. It would take a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate and ratification by 38 of the 50 states - requiring a huge shift of sentiment among Republicans who oppose restraints on any combination of ideological, practical or strategic grounds.

So Sarbanes is working within the framework of the attainable. His HR20 would provide Americans with a $25 tax credit for political contributions and generous incentives for candidates to pursue small-time donations. Under the Sarbanes bill, candidates would be eligible for matching funds at a 6-to-1 ratio for contributions of $150 or less.

"What this would do is lift those people up, who right now are effectively bystanders in a democracy where money is speech," Sarbanes said.

It's not hard to see the appeal of this measure, which has attracted more than 150 House co-sponsors.

It's equally easy to detect the potential pitfalls in the workability and the sources of partisan resistance. Only one Republican, Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, has signed on as a co-sponsor.

The partisan tint? The bill would provide bonus matching funds to candidates who don't take donations from "traditional political action committees." But that provision does make an exception for "people PACs," which could include the environmental, consumer or worker activists who tend to vote Democratic. Sarbanes noted that such groups could include the Tea Party or other conservative grassroots movements - which is not exactly a winning argument with Republicans, who are in high angst about the influence of the fringe right on their party's electability.

The workability concern? The candidates who agreed to donation limits would remain vulnerable to big-money campaigns against them, either by a wealthy candidate spending his or her own money (which cannot be limited, the Supreme Court ruled in 1976) or one of the "super PACs" that have arisen since the Citizens United decision.

The Sarbanes bill would give candidates facing a super PAC attack in the last 60 days of a campaign the opportunity to get additional matching funds of up to $500,000. Still, that may not be nearly enough in this era when seven-figure onslaughts by well-heeled ideologues and special interests are commonplace in tight races.

Moreover, some Americans may not like their tax dollars going into the vapid TV spots and nasty mailers that pass for public discourse these days.

Sarbanes' proposed Government by the People Act is worth a try, but no one should be under the illusion it's a panacea for what's wrong with money in politics. Americans should not settle for anything less than a plainspoken constitutional amendment that declares our right to regulate the size, source and transparency of donations going to candidates for public office.

About the 'Government by the People Act'

Sponsor

Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., right, with more than 150 co-sponsors

Its goal

To amplify the voice of everyday Americans against the influence of monied interests in congressional elections.

How it works

Each American who contributed to campaigns would be eligible for a $25 refundable tax credit.

Candidates who voluntarily agree to eschew donations from political action committees and accept lower donation limits altogether ($1,000 instead of the standard $2,600) would receive federal matching funds on small donations ($150 or less) at the rate of $6 for every $1. In other words, a $50 donation would yield a total of $350 for a candidate.

Candidates who agreed to a $150 limit on all donations would receive $9 in federal matching funds for each $1 received.

To counter a late surge of money from special interests, citizen-funded candidates who can raise at least $50,000 in small-dollar donations would be eligible for additional public funding in the 60 days leading to the election.